User talk:Randykitty/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Randykitty. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Hi Randy,

I wanted to inquire about a page that was deleted (Nana Kwame Bediako) CEO of Petroniacity & Wonda Estates. There was an article published on him a while back and we just noticed it was just deleted. I think they stated it was due to blatant spam but with respect the article was not written by anyone in house from the company. Wanted to know how we could possibly get page back up again a even edited to make sure we meet all of wikipedia's guideline? I spoke directly with my brother and he felt someone was just solely trying to tarnish his image. What can we provide from our end to ensure that the page isn't going against wikipedia regulations?

Would be greatly appreciated if you can shed some light on this for us?

Papa Yaw Bediako. Officialproper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialproper (talk • contribs) 12:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nana Kwame Bediako was deleted because it was irredeemably promotional. I don't think it is a good idea to restore it, not even in your personal sandbox. Nobody tried to tarnish anybody's image (except perhaps the person who created the article, because the overblown claims in it actually have the opposite effect). As this is apparently your brother, you have a conflict of interest, so it would be best if you did not edit this article at all. If your brother really is notable (which is not the same as worthy or important, see the link), then somebody will sooner or later write an article about him. If you still would want to work on this article, you could try to put in an undelete request at WP:REFUND. --Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Randy you're awesome for responding back. Wasn't sure why since it had already been verified and published but thank you. I also concur with you on not restoring it since it would just create more problems. Thank you once again and for also clarifying that whoever wrote it may have been the person who deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.251.146 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, the person who created it was the cause for the overly promotional content, somebody else then tagged it with {{db-spam}}, and I then deleted it. --Randykitty (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

what da hell is ur probelm i have mentioned the realiable resouce name Sajid & Zeeshan why u r putting dleetion tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biographywriter61 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you are new here and know that WP can be a bit daunting when one starts. You would do best reading the links to the different policies that I posted on your talk page. Sajid & Zeeshan is what we call a "wikilink", not a reference. WP cannot be used as a reference, because it is not considered a reliable source. As an aside, talk pages are used to post messages, not to "text" somebody, so we use complete words instead of "u r" and such. We also try to stay civil at all times and to assume good faith from the part of other editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty, I'm sorry to post this on a Sunday, but it has been the only day I had a chance to post and edit on Wikipedia. No hurry but I have two items for your valuation: 1) I added a bit of info to the Surgical Neurology International entry according to WikiProject Academic Journals as you had previously suggested I do. See also Talk page there. 2) Of more import, the Psychosurgery and History of Psychosurgery entries suggested improvement we discussed last week has been insubstantial by the user who has taken possession of those entries. I have posted a comment on History of psychosurgery I would like for your opinion and guidance. ThanksLeBassRobespierre (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have responded about the journal on its talk page. The psychosurgery thing goes a bit beyond my competence, so I have posted a note at the Medicine WikiProject (as well as their psychiatry task force, although that one seems to be a bit moribund) asking for the assistance of some more specialized editors. Hope that will help! --Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A company notable on Google cubicleinternational.weebly.com cubicleos.weebly.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewj344 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you deleted Chronology_of_the_Doctor_Who_universe, but you did not remove the resulting red links in articles, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Chronology_of_the_Doctor_Who_universe. This housekeeping is part of the procedure for deletions, see WP:AFDAI. I hope you will be willing to finish mopping up this one! Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I goofed there. Sorry about that, still learning the ropes. I'll try to pay more attention in future. Normally I would use the "unlink" function of Twinkle, but I guess that in this case its better to take out the whole link, not just to unlink it. I'll get to it right away. Thanks for the heads up! --Randykitty (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Done I think I got all links in article space. I left all links in talk pages and such. Let me know if I skipped something that I shouldn't have. --Randykitty (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks! – Fayenatic London 08:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

whts ur problem?????? why u r nt giving me tym to search for refernce for the article Sajid Abdullah Bin Alam WHAT DE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU????? (sorry 4 writing in shortcut)(Biographywriter61 (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're unable to communicate in a normal, civil way, I am unable to provide you with any answers. I gave information in response to your post above. In addition, myself and another user have provided info in our edit summaries. Please have a look at all that before coming here to yell at me. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Randy,

I wanted to inquire about a page that was deleted Nireas-IWRC. This article was related to our Research Center and we only want to disseminate our Research Center's work. the Center has its log trademarked and also it belongs to the University of Cyprus. Can you please inform us about this issue? Toumazis Researhcer at Nireas-IWRC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttoumazis (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the article was deleted for being promotional. Articles in WP should be written in an encyclopedic, that is neutral, tone. Given that you yourself work at this center, that may be difficult for you (see also WP:COI). In addition to being promotional, the article was absolutely insufficiently sourced. Links to the homepages of organizations are not sources if they don't mention anything that supports the claims made in the article. Given that the center was only founded in 2011, there is a large probability that it will not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I understand that you "want to disseminate our Research Center's work", but WP is not for promoting your organization. --Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the details answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttoumazis (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know why you deleted the page for The Sunday Times Travel Magazine, when Wikipedia currently has pages for nearly all travel magazines, apart from ours, yet we are the best-selling and most award-winning travel magazine in Britain. The page was written by a staffer, but this was clearly stated on the staffer's page (if there is another way to declare conflict of interest, please tell me where and I will add it - I'm new to Wikipedia and couldn't find another way to do this), and many of our competitors pages have also been written by staffers (although usually undeclared, but in several cases, I know who the page originators are, and they are or were staffers on rival publications).

These Wikipedia pages belong to our competitors. I can't understand why they are allowed Wikipedia pages, yet you've deleted ours. These are just a few of our competitor pages that exist on Wikipedia -and we sell more on the UK newsstand than any of them, by quite some amount. If it is deemed that people will want to know about smaller publications, it seems odd they wouldn't want to know the history and facts about the biggest one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cond%C3%A9_Nast_Traveller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cond%C3%A9_Nast_Traveler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_Traveler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanderlust_(magazine) And there are many more. You can see them all here. In fact, we are one of the ONLY major travel magazines not to have a page on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_travel_magazines

In addition, we are part of the world's oldest newspaper group (although we are an entirely separate publication from the daily and weekly newspaper; we are a monthly glossy magazine and NOT the weekly travel supplement), and our own company has several Wikipedia pages here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times_Magazine

Can you please undelete this page, or amend it to your satisfaction so that it can be reinstated? Or let me know what to do to get it reinstated, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillsg (talk • contribs) 11:04, 16 May 2014

(talk page stalker) I've left a message about COI on the editor's talkpage. PamD 11:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And tried to offer her some guidance on mine in reply to her request. PamD 12:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Pam. I read your comments and don't really have anything to add to it, you covered it well. @Jillsg:, I will have a look at the articles that you listed to see whether they are appropriate. But I really must tell you that you don't seem to understand what WP is about, given that your talk about pages that "belong to our competitors". Pages don't belong to anybody and anybody can edit them. --Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The point is not about marketing. The point is that Wikipedia readers are as likely to want to read the facts about the leading title as they are about smaller titles. It'd be like having a Wikipedia page for a small-town New York paper, but not allowing one for The New York Times. I tried to remove all marketing content between the draft version (not sure if you can see it - I submitted it for comments, but heard nothing back) and the final one. I thought the page I submitted was pretty unbiased and fact-based, and I based it on the style of other similar Wikipedia pages for other publications, but would rather you removed the bits you think aren't facts than the entire page. Is that possible? Cheers (I hope I'm getting the signature thing right now).Jillsg (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I just had a look at the magazine articles that you listed and, apart from Wanderlust, they actually could serve well as a template for you. I will undelete the article that you wrote and "userfy" it (meaning that I'll restore it in your userspace, not in main article space), so you can work on it. Ping me when you think it is ready and I'll have a look at it. --Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to follow the style of our main paper Wikipedia page for consistency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times

and other major magazine pages, such as these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogue_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamour_(magazine)

Also because I think it's more informative. Do you think we should provide LESS information? If so, what should be deleted? Jillsg (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have undeleted the article, it is at User:Jillsg/The Sunday Times Travel Magazine. You should use wording that is as neutral as possible. Start with telling the reader what this is: a British travel magazine, not that it is "best selling" and how large a circulation this has. This should be an encyclopedic entry, not a flyer to sell ads. Follow WP:MWG, as Pam advised you. Try to put yourself in the mind of a reader of WP, not an ad manager. Our readers are not really that much interested in circulation figures. If that should be mentioned at all, mention it somewhere later in the article. Make it brief and factual. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty:I think I see the bit you wanted removed. I thought I had removed it between draft and publication, but it looks like I left it in. It was the bit about our demographic. I also changed the word 'best-selling' to 'largest-selling' as our newspaper uses, which perhaps sounds more like a statement of fact (verified by the ABC link provided - although admittedly you'd have to look at the ABCs for our competitors to see the figures, but I don't know how to provide multiple links for that in one go) than the word 'best-selling'. I also removed the price, although I think that's quite often posted on Wikipedia pages. Should I add that back in? I also removed a couple of words, such as evocative.

But I can't see anything else that isn't just a statement of fact. If you think we need to remove Awards or links to our external pages, let me know, but I thought Awards were frequently listed on Wikipedia, as on these pages for other magazines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_(magazine)

Jillsg (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have now edited this again quite extensively. See previous notes above re: awards, etc. Also, on Wikipedia's own guidelines, it states that a magazine should be considered noteworthy if it has awards, therefore I have left them up as they are the basis of proving worthiness for Wikipedia.

Can you please make this live again, or let me know what other changes you think it needs?

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillsg (talk • contribs) 15:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, I have gone through the article with a fine-toothed comb. What the article still needs before I can move it back into main space is references (sources). Especially for the awards, you'll need reliable sources that are independent of the magazine. If no such sources exist or can be found, the awards info should be deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty: I have provided all possible sources. See notes on the page. Can you please make this page live again? Cheers.Jillsg (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy right now, but will have a look tonight or tomorrow. --Randykitty (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Have you had a chance to look at this yet?Jillsg (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, this weekend I hope. --Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty: I see you still haven't looked at it. The magazine image we uploaded has now been deleted because it wasn't linked to a live article. Can you please look at this ASAP? I have provided all links requested. If you don't have time to look at it, then could you please make the page live again and allow other Wikipedia editors the opportunity to do so instead? Jillsg (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops! I'm sorry, completely forgot about it! I have looked at it and did some cleanup. I removed some less important stuff (nominations, obviously less-important awards) and corrected the layout (mostly overuse of bold type). I have moved the article back to article space and restored the cover. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Thanks so much! You seem to have also removed several of our awards (not nominations, but actual wins). Perhaps you thought they were duplicates because they had the same name, but different years? Can you please reinstate these? I'm not sure how. Cheers.Jillsg (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I combined those into one line (both years are mentioned, references combined, too). Unless you mean the awards that have no functional link any more because the companies/groups that gave them don't exist any more. Those are obviously not very notable awards, so I deleted those. --Randykitty (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty: They were very important awards in the travel industry, but unfortunately, the owners - the awards were only a small part of their business - went bankrupt. They will probably be reinstated once sponsors can be found, but the fact the people who ran the awards went bankrupt doesn't make them less important. I suspect that, through history, you'd find many awards that changed names (as the MD&JA awards did - these aren't defunct, just renamed) or no longer exist, but that doesn't make them any less important. Could you please either reinstate them, or, at a minimum, message me the all ones you removed so that I can maintain them and submit them to others for their approval? I spent ages trying to track down all the links, but I foolishly didn't copy and paste them to a word document because I thought they would always be available on Wikipedia. My guess is that they are, but I've tried looking through the edits history and can't find them. Cheers.

Jill, everything can still be seen in the article history. Regardless how important those awards were, you cannot include them in the article if you don't have independent reliable sources that verify them. --Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty:

Ah. I didn't realise that what you wanted was verification of the awards themselves. I thought it was that you wanted a list proving that we won them. I can easily prove the quality of the awards with multiple online references. I'll add these back in, with the references to the quality of the awards.

Just so you know, we have actually won many awards from smaller organisations and events, which I did not include for the very reason you mentioned.

Also, just for your own reference, the awards that didn't have website references - the Travel Press Awards - are actually very important in the industry. The company that previously sponsored them recently closed, which is why there is no longer a web reference, but the awards are themselves are referenced in many other well-respected publications. Someone will undoubtedly be found to sponsor the awards again later this year, but for a short period of time, there is no official website for the awards.

You can see them mentioned here, for example: http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2013/11/21/46114/travel+weekly+clean+sweep+at+british+travel+press+awards.html And http://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/guardian-news-media-british-travel-press-award-2011 And http://www.newsworks.org.uk/News-and-Opinion/newspapers-win-at-british-travel-press-awards-/64829 And so on.

In another case, an award has been renamed (MD&JA), but it still exists and has done so for more than a decade, so I will also add in the reference to the Wikipedia page that mentions the awards and their renaming. I assume that if an award is listed on a Wikipedia page (plus numerous other times elsewhere) that is it deemed worthy of including it as a win.

Also, by sensibly trying to merge some of the awards, you've actually given us awards that both don't actually exist and that sound even better than they are. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, so I will amend this.

In 2006, for example, Ed Grenby wasn't EDITOR OF THE YEAR - this doesn't not exist as a standalone title in these awards. He was Editor of the year WITHIN a specific category. It would be like changing the award for someone who won an Oscar for, say, Best Director for an animated film, into "Best Director" - a much different title (and in the case of the awards you changed, one that doesn't exist; awards are given in different categories - consumer, business, contract, and so on). I'm afraid people will think the magazine is claiming awards that don't exist if we don't list the correct category.

Finally, by removing the editorial board from the panel on the page, you've both contradicted Wikipedia's own magazine guidelines and also made it very difficult for anyone to see that the creator of the page - me - would have a COI in writing it. Also, by doing so, it leaves only our most junior member of staff listed, rather than the senior editors.

Here are Wikipedia's guidelines on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Magazines/Writing_guide

And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_magazine

Where, if you scroll down, you will see this: If other editing positions are required (e.g. Senior Editor or Associate Editor), use the additional editor fields show below. | editor2 = | editor_title2 = | editor3 = | editor_title3 =

Perhaps you are under the impression that I included the magazine's entire editorial board? I did not. The listing would be vast if I had done so. I included only the editors who have a significant day-to-day impact on the magazine, and I included none of our authors nor our designers, photo editors, etc. In fact, I included far fewer members of our editorial team than many publications, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times

But my main concern is that we are listing awards for people who aren't showing on the editorial board (Nick Redman - and who is shortlisted for another major award for us again this year) and the COI for me.

Anyway, thanks for your help. I will make these amends soon. Jillsg (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty, I was just wondering if you had a chance to see the additions and changes I made to the page. I've been working to establish the distinction between cognitive therapy and cognitive training... Please let me know what you think and if you have any recommendations that may help me meet the notability guidelines. Thank you, Wellness writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellness writer (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you please stop deleting the "Schagerl" article. It is no advertising. How would you feel if I were to delete your articles?

Smoke4774 (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

In response to this. Adding rules into your anti-vandal bot (That I am sure you did not program yourself.) is no way to treat other editors on wikipedia. You believe that some very basic terminology is "inappropiate", I requested that you should add some suggestions to clear up the page. All you did was repeat again that the pages were linked to are DAB pages. I am really starting to get a taste of the culture here on Le Wik. 12.227.104.109 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Adding rules into your anti-vandal bot"? What are you talking about? I don't have a anti-vandalbot and I wouldn't know how to add rules to it even if I did. As for linking to disambiguation pages, that is incorrect and should not be done, see WP:INTDAB. --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Twinkle. Twinkle is an anti-vandal bot, that you input rules so that it can watch certain pages or people so you don't have to. Do you really think that I am that stupid? Of course you don't know that interacting with Twinkle is adding rules to it, because you didn't program it yourself! (I just push buttons and it's just magic, right?) Well, since you didn't want to suggest any other pages, I guess I had to do all the thinking for you. I've instead linked to wiktionary. 12.227.104.109 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle is an editing tool, not a bot and not just an anti-vandal tool either. You cannot make it "watch certain pages or people so you don't have to". So nice to interact with someone who knows WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Any further rants will be deleted on sight. --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you should assume good faith and been civil, and should have suggested links instead of telling me that you feel like being delete happy. Tell me, what is the difference between a bot and a tool? You know that twinkle has semi-automatic reporting and task automation, how is that any different from a bot? 12.227.104.109 (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a big difference. The difference lies in the "semi-automatic", whereas a bot is automatic. Twinkle doesn't do anything without being triggered by a human being, a bot operates independently. Just have a look at WP:TWINKLE to see what Twinkle does and does not. --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to bring up that erroneous point. You are wrong, I have a quadrocopter that I built myself. It has flight stabilization software that it uses by polling accelerometers hundereds of times a second. I control it, but it stabalizes itself, how is it not a robot? Twinkle is automatically entering in those keystokes and clicks, without any intervention. You control it, it does what you tell it to, it's still a bot, just a semi-automatic one. I would know, I'm programming my own software as we are having this back and forth. At this point, this is semantics. Now hopefully we will be able to go our own ways. I wish you the best in the future. 12.227.104.109 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty, researching my newest entry I found a couple of entries that may have some real fluff that may require editorial deletion. I refer to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 's "Membership Demographics/ Requirements" section and The Congress of Neurological Surgeons' "Membership status." I think these section contain nothing but fluff that a person checking into such memberships would necessarily look into within the fine print of the organizations' website. I t also dilutes the entry. Am I correct? Thanks. Incidentally I noticed the nice kitten I gave you has been replaced by the ferocius little fellow above! LeBassRobespierre (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Those articles are quite bad, feel free to take a blunt axe to them... I've deleted the indeed egregious membership stuff in both entries, not much more time than that right now. That little furry fellow is quite cute and reminds me of the cartoon where a cat is looking into a mirror and sees a lion: that definitely is the case here! :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wanted to check with you first. I appreciate your help. Please don't be too hard on Neuralia. He was still sore from the previous exchange and he meant well. He seems to be a kind fellow and his intent was pure. Many of us are learning. In fact I have given recognition to the two of you... And those kitten pics were an excellent selection!LeBassRobespierre (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I need your arbitration of a persistent and recurrent problem: arbitrary unilateral deletions of material and useful references by a user and/or editor on the History of psychosurgery. He also does not explain himself in the Talk page, does not assume good faith ("You are promoting...", and does not bother to try to reach consensus on anything. Once again, I bother you on a Sunday, but is the only time I had to spare. It is all explained on the Talk page there. Thanks for this as well as your useful deletions of fluff in the AANS and CNS entries. You got there before I did!LeBassRobespierre (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Problems of Oriental Philosophy (journal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Unambiguous advertising or promotion"

idk because your action seems to make it impossible to view any version of the article. Is there a way to view what was in place or does you getting a wild hair about it = all records destroyed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.46.177 (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not "destroyed", sysops can still see it. I just checked, and it basically was just a detailed CV, with no encyclopedic content whatsoever. It also looked like it might have been copied from somewhere and be a copyright violoation (and I see at the request for undeletion that you posted that Tokyogirl79 indeed found the source of it). If the person is notable, there is no problem with creating a new article that is not a copyvio and follows our normal standards. --Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Randykitty, I would like to take this moment and thank you for taking part in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty. Do you remember you removed (16 February 2014) a reference to Miguel Faria’s article in the external links section of Psychosurgery, with a comment about a spamlink to a non-notable journal (although I think you have since changed your mind about the journal)? Did you, I wonder, at the time check the IP address from which it came Special:Contributions/166.205.68.22? There are only a few edits from this address, and several of them are vandalism. I know an IP address can be shared, but it is interesting that the first edits (promptly removed from the article) are on a subject that is one of Miguel Faria’s interests. If you look at the edits of LeBassRobespierre across several articles (Phineas Gage, Deep brain stimulation, Electrical brain stimulation, Psychosurgery, History of psychosurgery) you will see that they are just feeding in bits of Miguel Faria’s article, including the references (according to the manual of style you are only supposed to cite sources that you have read, and not just list references from an article, and you are not supposed to just copy bits of text from articles). I don’t think they have made a single edit of these articles which has used another source. I think that this amounts to an attempt to promote someone or something in Wikipedia rather than a genuine attempt to improve articles. Staug73 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation. If you think that is the case, then WP:ANI is the place to go. The journal has turned out to be notable, albeit borderline. However, notability is not identical to reliability, of course. Much depends on whether you accept Faria's article as a valid source for WP. If it is, then there is nothing wrong with adding it to the articles that you list. There is a reliable sources noticeboard somewhere (can't remember exactly where at this moment) and you could ask the question at the experts there. Apart from that, it would be good if some other editors could have a look at this. It's not really my subject, so I have posted a note at the Neuroscience Wikiproject. With some luck, somebody there will take a look and perhaps suggest a way out. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no secret of those articles; they are posted in my user page as Creation or Edits, no Sherlock Holmes necessary to find that. Yes I feel Faria's work brings the subject up to date in a variety of ways. I don't know about any vandalism (another false accusation). I don't know about that IP address. It is certainly not mine! As to the other accusations, they are false; "copy" imply plagiarism and that certainly is also false, not even in the examples which Staug73 cited previously. The primary authors are cited and there is no string of words. I welcome the investigation. In the meantime, Randykitty, can you place a hold on Staug73 repeated deletions, and I will also cease editing in those pages until the matter is settled. Thanks. LeBassRobespierre (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Randykitty, I have never edited the deep brain stimulation, electrical brain stimulation or (I think) Phineas Gage articles. I was simply citing them as examples of the editing of LeBassRobespierre, inserting sentences and/or references from Miguel Faria's article into Wiki articles. The insertion of a reference into the Phineas Gage article was removed, I think the edits to the other two articles are still there. Staug73 (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again! From one accusation to another... to calumniate a fellow Wikipedian (so much for assuming good faith) and also the author (Faria) he is citing, just to keep me from editing two entries Staug73 thinks are his alone. He forgot the rules of wikipedia.

In those articles (all of which are related to psychosurgery and neuroscience), which are presently my areas of interest, I added several references in addition to Faria's. Once again, Staug73 left information out to malign. I added several other references to both entries, which he neglected to mention: 1) Delgado, Jose (1986). Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society. New York: Harper and Row and again: 2) Robison, RA; Taghva A; Liu CY; Apuzzo ML (2012). "Surgery of the mind, mood and conscious state: an idea in evolution". World Neurosurg 77: 662–686 3) Penfield, Wilder (1974). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. New York: Atheneum. 4) Mark, Vernon (1970). Violence and the Brain. New York: Harper and Row.

I added essential information (that was actually requested) from the above articles to the two related and deficient entries: Deep brain stimulation and Electrical brain stimulation, both of which had TAGS asking for additional citations and improvements:

Deep brain stimulation:" This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can."

Electrical brain stimulation (which only had a single reference!):"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources."

So improvements were asked for and were needed, and to do so I added information with those specific references because they needed inclusion, just as Faria's — all of them that I consider important.

In the Phineas Gage article, Staug73 is even lying. The reference I added was not Faria's:

"Neurologic function seven years after crowbar impalement of the brain" in Surgical Neurology by Ordia (1989) pages152-155. Supposedly it was removed because "mentioning Gage only tangentially, and certainly not an appropriate cite for "no longer Gage" (citied in article body anyway).

There has never been ANY vandalism by me there or anywhere else. It is not my style, as Randykitty himself should be able to testify! Staug73's professional vendetta with Faria has now extended to me because I edited the entries on Psychosurgery and History of psychosurgery, that he has expropriated and keeps under lock and key!

Finally, I repeat, I have no connection whatsoever to Special:Contributions/166.205.68.22, whoever he is or to any vandalism. I'm sure no connections of that IP address will be associated with me, and if there is, it would be a tenuous coincidence. My contributions to Wikipedia have been sterling and proud of them.So much so I listed them in my User page. What this vendetta is, I don't know, except Staug73 is adamant I can not edit his History of psychosurgery or Psychosurgery, no matter what references I add, and certainly not Faria or Surgical Neurology International, as sources with whom he also seems to have professional vendettas. I'm sorry Randykitty if we are crowding your page, but this is where Staug73 he is now posting.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

People, this is not the place for this discussion. You should look for mediation, a third opinion, or open a request for comment on the article talk page. I have not the time nor the inclination to delve through Faria's article and compare it with the articles he cite to determine whether he committed plagiarism. that is, by the way, a very serious allegation and should not be thrown around in public like this without very solid proof. End of discussion here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I've had a look at merging this into Kennedy's Confection magazine but the magazine seems to be completely non-notable itself: it's only being mentioned in the same crappy sources that discuss the taster. What do you think the best way to proceed is? Send the magazine to AFD? Cheers SmartSE (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear! One would expect that sources should be around for a magazine that is over 100 years old... All I found for now is http://kennedysevents.com/. Not an independent source, either, but if the meeting is as large as the photos suggest, again, I would expect some sources to be available. But if no sources can be found, I'm not really sure what to do. Perhaps the best would to perform the merge and then take the merged article to AFD again... This is not a situation I recall ever to have encountered, do you perhaps know of a precedent and how that was handled? --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- No I can't recall a situation like this happening before. There are some very very brief mentions of "Kennedy's Confection" in google books but I certainly can't find anything approaching GNG. I'll go ahead with the merge and decide where to go from there. SmartSE (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have it watchlisted, let me know if I can help. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of your edits I agree with, but you seem to have deleted one section entirely, without adding a justification on the page 'Talk' section. You've also created 4 broken links (trying to link to Wikipedia pages that don't exist). Please be more careful when editing. Klbrain (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are not "broken links". We call that redlinks. They are needed for the further development of the wiki. Those redlinks that I made are almost certainly notable subjects in themselves and the redlink will alert other editors to this fact. In addition, when an article on these subjects is created, we don't need to search the whole wiki for places where they are mentioned and link them, because they are already linked. I will restore those links, re-delete the section that you re-added, and explain that on the article's talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; that's clear. I've now started pages for each of the societies I had linked, plus the journal. They are currently only stubs, but hopefully can build from there. Klbrain (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for speedy copyediting of Przegląd Socjologiczny. Am I right that the journal is not indexed anywhere outside Copernicus? Can you perhaps find out any statistics to add such as its impact factor or such? Thanks!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kitten! According to their website, they are in three other databses. I always remove Copernicus from journal articles, since (as far as I can see) their content is user provided. (Which explains their weird coverage: they include all kinds of obscure journals, but miss many of the most important ones). I found an abbreviation in the LCC (click on the LCCN). The mentioned databases are not very selective, but I think this journal can claim notability as having a significant history. It is not in any Thomson Reuters database, so it has no IF. Strangely enough, although there are 14 journals with names starting with Przegląd in Scopus, this is not one of them. --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of the notability of Copernicus database? PS. If you reply here can you echo me? Thanks!

Randy, I see in the section above that you accept "having a significant history" as reason to include a journal--and I agree with you totally. B . The GNG and Academic journal standards are not necessarily relevant. But this applies to Democracy and Culture also, as I have just argued there. I found it necessary to explain there i why I disagreed so sharply with you, but it was not meant as disrespect. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry David, when I solicited your opinion, I was almost 90% certain that you would be in favor of keeping the article. However, if the article is to be kept, I want it to be kept on the basis of rational arguments, not on the basis of the arguments that have been brought forward up till now in the AfD. And you did indeed deliver, I admit forgetting to check WorldCat. I'll withdraw the nom, but several of the arguments there still bother me and I will leave a larger comment there, which you may (or not) want to respond to. I would also appreciate if you could have a look at the article itself, because I do think that there are issues with the listing of editorial board members, contributors, and description of content (all sourced to the journal itself and hence OR), all things we normally don't do in journal articles (except, of course, if there are independent sources documenting notable involvement with the journal of a board member or contributor). As you can see in the article history, my attempts to edit it were met with accusations of wanting to destroy it. As an aside, I'm astonished about the number of people participating in this debate. Most journal-related AfDs linger sometimes for weeks before there are even just one or two participants... --Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I was looking through the history of the article on Caijing magazine, and I noticed that a user keeps trying to add material praising the magazine, and you keep removing it as spam. I'm no expert on China, but it seems that this is an important and influential magazine, and I think readers should know why. It seems that this user may not be a native English speaker and the additions were rather awkward, but perhaps we could let some of that material stand for a while so other editors have a chance to work on it? Margin1522 (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As long as it is promotional, we cannot let it stand. But given that you seem to be interested, why don't you edit the article yourself? As long as it is neutral and verifiable through reliable sources there is absolutely no problem with additions. --Randykitty (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As a courtesy notification, I made reference to one of your deletions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion of articles about music and film festivals and would welcome your perspective there. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it too hard to read and understand? Maroc Hebdo was transformed to a magazine in 2005 and founded as a newspaper. People are expected to collaborate on here and AGF and display judgement in subject they're clearly not knowledgeable about, (and not be an ass). I create tons of content here, I prefer not to waste time edit warring on silly things. --Tachfin (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll respond on the article's talk page. AGF refers to assuming people's intentions are good, not assuming that their contributions are correct. CIVIL has something to say about calling people an "ass". Next time you do that simply because someone dare disagree with you, we'll go to WP:ANI. Thanks for your friendly message. --Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: seeing your request for page protection, a few more things: please in future notify people that you accuse of edit warring on some noticeboard, so that they can defend themselves (not that I am going to do that here, things are crystal clear). Second, please read WP:OWN and WP:BOOMERANG. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I think your deletion of the article on Kevin S. Hamilton was premature. What we need is a very broad discussion of what LDS leaders are and are not notable. There seems to be a widespread view that we should assume all General Authorities are notable, and the coutner view seems to largely be driven by what at best is described as antagonistic attacks. This should not be debated on an article by aritcle basis, but should be a full discussion where we can decide if 1-all members of the 1st Quorum of 70 are notable (which has been the general view), 2-All members of the 2nd Quorum of the 70 are notable (which in the end has not been the view, but no one has ever given good policy reasons for this distinction.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the way to handle this then would not be on the level of the individual article, but at a more appropriate place have that discussion. If the outcome would be that the community agrees with this viewpoint, then we can easily take Hamilton through a DRV and undelete the article. As it is, it was taken to AfD as an individual article and there was no solid evidence of notability except for his position as a General Authority. In the absence of a community-based consensus that such is enough to show notability, I think deletion was the only outcome supported by policy. --Randykitty (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Linden School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The article as written justifies a prod but Google Scholars shows many co-authored articles. Could you perhaps comment on her notability's on talk (and ping me there)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow the YouTube link on this user page and you will see that it advertises a product ("Colic Calm"). This is a known spambot technique -- post nonsensical but seemingly innocuous copy (check) plus a spam link (check). Hence the dbspam tag (and also a report to WP:AIV). Please consider reverting your edit to remove the tag. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, not a technique I was familiar with... I've deleted the page. --Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're so vigorous to allow 5 year old data to linger on an article on a journal that has subsequently been through something of a scandal and a change of editor. Its very likely the impact data is misleading, its certainly out of date. If you can find more recent data, please show me a link. I couldn't find it Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If you see a city with population data sourced to a 1990 survey, do you delete that info because it is outdated? Of course not. First of all, it's correct. That was the population in 1990, even if the city was subsequently eradicated by an earthquake or tsunami. Ideally, you update the info. Otherwise you leave it alone. Same with this journal. That 2009 IF is not going to change anymore. Its outdated, certainly, but the year is clearly indicated, so it is not misleading. If you go to the journal website (as I alredy told you, I think), you will find the current IF here and you will see that, in fact, not much has changed since 2010. BTW, 2010 is much less outdated than it might seem, as the most current IF is from 2012 (published 2013). The 2013 IFs are expected any day now. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's a bit more like making comments that Detroit's size based on the 1990 census. Dated and inappropriate. Also, you knew where the data was, and rather than update it, you chose to revert and discuss. Very stylish. Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have enough to do. And I told you where you could find the info and still you just deleted it. Right, that's classy. And you mangled the referencing, because the ranking info in JCR is only given in the pages about categories, not the journal pages themselves. That's why there were multiple references originally. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I sure did. The way you did it is better... On the other hand I have no access to the reference you cited.... Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

which is to say, thanks. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty! How does the article vajiravudh college hppears to you? To me, it seem like an advert. I suggest we tag it With {{advert}} templates rather than just cleanup. Thanks (Wikicology (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC))

That's fine with me. It would be even better if you could use your time to make the article more neutral and encyclopedic. --Randykitty (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the biographies written by an editor who appears to be promoting the faculty at one university; I just commented "delete" at an AfD you started. I decided to look back at the pages created by the editor, and came upon Gerald Gamm. It strikes me as borderline for WP:PROF. What do you think? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is almost a walled garden. And all those people are "leading figures" and such... I looked at Gamm yesterday and decided not to PROD, although I can't remember why any more... Perhaps I saw something on WoS, but my access is currently not working, so I can't check. I'll try again later and let you know. --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Feminist Art Journal, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the templated message, Randykitty. My ire would be much better directed at the editor who started the article with such crap references.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn't completely sure about the copyvio being serious enough anyway, which is why I tagged it to get a seciond opinion rather than deleting it outright myself. The creator is a newbie. I'll edit the article a bit when i find some time. --Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, is About.com a reliable source? It's still in the external links. --Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Administrator Randykitty, Although we did not have a good start, when I first started editing two months ago, we eventually worked things out and accomplished a few good things. We initially disagreed with the content of two entries, but in the end we came to agreeable and sound understanding. I learned a lot from you, and frankly, I came to admire your sincerity in "going by the book," writing succinctly, and following Wikipedia guidelines. Yes, I learned from our engagement, and in the end I was able to create several new entries for three medical journals (one was routed), edited two other neurological society entries, as well as created or greatly improved several biographical entries with your helpful guidance. I think I have expressed my thanks in various ways. (My kitten to you in your talk page has disappeared though, replaced by another ferocious one!)

Also at your suggestion ( i.e., you placed red, non-functioning links in two of my created entries suggesting to me you desired additional new Wiki entries be created for those as well, (which I did.) I created those two other new neuroscience society entries: The Society of Neurological Surgeons and World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies. Now my work has come to stand still because I can not edit in areas of interest to me; that follows, in part, in the wake of my aforementioned Wiki work in which I worked with you.

I'm presently bogged down on this problem because I don't want to start a deletion- addition war with another editor, as you know. So I'm still unable to edit in those two psychosurgery entries of contention. This thread (WikiProject Medicine, "Assistance needed in Academic Dispute" ) is about to be archived, so I need your prompt attention and assistance as the conscientious and fair administrator I know you are (as well as most knowledgeable about this case):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Assistance_needed_in_Academic_Dispute

As you suggested I sought the help of experts elsewhere, including Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Medicine. In the section"Assistance needed in Academic Dispute," a consensus of several experts have developed, leaning towards allowing me to continue to improve those entries; allowing my additions and edits to remain; adding valid editorial suggestions; and implicitly agreeing with my addition of the new references mentioned there. This is supported by other editors there (i.e., User: 86.181.64.67, User CRUK John, and User: Whatamidoing) . No one has supported the other party. In fact the other party's objections have been deemed unmerited accusations, not worth responding to, properly and completely ignored; those engaged in the discussion have been supportive and making useful suggestions for editing the entries. Here are examples of comments, you will find there:

1. "I don't see this a primary source issue, given that most of the argument seems to be about the 19th century, and one of StAug's complaints is that the article relies heavily on other sources." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

2. "I don't see any good reason to omit this. The source appears to meet plain-vanilla WP:RS (which is all that is required for non-biomedical information like this), Staug appears to admit to its verifiability and accuracy in a back-handed way, and it is not unreasonable or UNDUE to say that this technique was promoted by the experts of the day, rather than by quacks or random physicians who didn't know much about the subject. So I'd include this. Perhaps Staug can tell us more about the objections." WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

3. "The thing about Faria's bibliography is that reliable sources aren't required to cite their sources at all, and they commonly don't cite all of their sources (just giving one example is often enough), so the fact that you don't approve of the fact that only one source is cited is kind of irrelevant. (We also don't care about citing the first person; we need it to be verifiable to something that's (at least) good enough, so we don't reject verifiable and appropriate information because the source is good enough but not necessarily the best.)... If there's a dispute about the nature of "some of" its early proponents, then I think that is a good thing to explain. But I'm not sure that Sobral Cid is proof that psychiatrists were opposed to psychosurgery in its early-modern days; if I've got the dates right, Cid was just fourteen years old when the psychiatrist Gottlieb Burckhardt published the results of psychosurgery, as described in the article. (How is it that we don't have an article on José Sobral Cid (see w:pt:José Sobral Cid) yet?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

4. "While, as John underlines, this historical topic would not technically be subject to MEDRS, I thought it might be useful anyway to consider potential reliable medical sources that aren't currently cited on the page. A quick look at PubMed brought up: - Lapidus et al. History of psychosurgery: a psychiatrist's perspective. World Neurosurg 2013 PMID 23419707 - also, perhaps: Herbert Jasper. A historical perspective. The rise and fall of prefrontal lobotomy. Adv Neurol 1995 PMID 7771315 Either might be worth considering (though unfortunately they're not open access). 86.181.64.67 (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC) - And a few more historical articles that may be pertinent: Patel et al 2013 PMID 23159652; El-Hai 2008 PMID 19248679; Feldman 2001 PMID 11270556. 86.181.64.67 (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "To clarify, I didn't mean to imply that they necessarily have to be cited. Rather, that they could prove to be potentially useful NPOV sources; unlike Faria's articles which, personally, I think should be used only to reference that particular POV." 86.181.64.67 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

5. "Editorially, I think this series of [Faria] papers could perhaps be characterized as a set of 'viewpoint articles'. Certainly, in WP terms, they do advance an individual POV. (I believe Wikipedia tries to take account of the different POVs on a topic that are deemed significant, based on policies and guidelines." 86.181.64.67 (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, we need to close this issue and move on. I agree with most of these valid independent comments by these other experts, and It appears that all that was to be said has been said. Four related articles all mentioned in these pages and on this subject need improvement (two of them even have tags) but I need an administrator or administrators to make a consensual decision, based on the discussion in these pages, so hopefully I can resume my editing contributions. Except for the administrator talk, who gave me initial guidance and valuable advice, I can't tell if any other administrator is watching the discussion. I hope he/she can also help make a decision so we can move on. So far as I can tell the two of you are the most knowledgeable administrators on this case administrators, if any others are even involved. So please take some action. give me the go ahead. It is only only one recalcitrant person standing in the way. Even with the discussion blowing in my favor, I do not believe that other party will relent or allow my edits to stand, ignoring these experts' suggestions — that is, unless an administrator(s) intervenes, makes an enforceable decision. He may not even abide by the ruling of an administrator, so I recognize your reluctance to become involved; but if you don't, as a fair and conscientious administrators, who will? You know I'm also a conscientious and serious Wikipedia contributor. If you don't help who will then help and police Wikipedia after a consensus is established?

Once again, I'm sorry to have crowded your Talk page; after this is resolved one way or another I can transfer this info on my own Talk page as a chronicle.

Thank you, Randykitty (and Lesser Cartographies), for your consideration of this matter in advance. cc. Lesser Cartographies LeBassRobespierre (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SouthRevcover2013.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

How are you doing today? I'm new to Wikipedia and was hoping you could help me out. I saw you made a few big edits to the page I was working on, the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs. It says there are issues with the notabiilty of the page, what would constitute being notable? I saw a number of other smaller journal's entries with only a single line or two, I'm wondering what the difference in notability is? Also, it looks like you have edits on the page going back to 2012, are you associated with the organization? Finally, I uploaded a scanned cover from the latest copy, which was removed for copyright infringement, if I email the owner of the material and get permission, would I be able to put it back up? I see other journals and magazines have scanned covers on the page which look really good, and wanted to do the same. I was trying to use the entry for Foreign Affairs as my guide, which was why I used the infobox that I did, was this a mistake? Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgranot (talk • contribs) 13:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madman Muntz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cut-throat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am considering AfDing it, but first I thought I'd as you about his h-index and such? Is his academic career sufficient per WP:PROF? Because I am not seeing much from the GNG / POLITICIAN angle, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a bit busy right now, getting ready for a trip. I would expect that only a well-known economist would be chosen for a position like this, and the Fulbright suggests as much. If it can wait till next week, I can have a look then (remind me, though...:-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrote this up in my usual half-assed way. When you return from your travels, can you maybe have a look and improve it a bit? Have a great summer, kitty! Drmies (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

In fact, organizations that produce publications are real organizations in their own right. Their purpose is to produce media of various sorts, they have staff and budgets. In many subject areas the key organizations are all publishers first and then subject matter experts after. In the social sciences most of the key organizations are not categorized.

I do agree, that if the parent organization of a publishing group exists on Wikipedia, they should be listed as the organization and the child, publications unit, does not have to be. Until I wrote the parent yesterday, there was no organization link for that Association. Now there is.

Some of the best resource organizations are publication groups. We need to be flexible while building categories. Better to add them and then improve. You could have asked me why I did it, first. Kind regards. RC711 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The article was about the journal, the society was only mentioned and no further information given (as it should be, because that is not the subject of that article). It is therefore simply incorrect to categorize the journal as an organization. The organization was redlinked, so clearly in need of an article. Having the journal in an incorrect cat does not help one bit. --Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, I think using a url parameter that duplicates the link created by the doi parameter is useful when the url points to a full version of the referenced article. Most doi's do not point to a freely available full text version of the article referenced. When the full text is available I think creating a link for the title in the reference is useful. I have clicked on hundreds of DOIs that point only to a website from which I can purchase the article. Having the title linked indicates that the article is available by clicking on it. Comments and discussion welcomed. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is paying, I leave the URL if it is different from the DOI. But in this case, it's exactly the same and clicking either will get you to the very same page, so I don't think it is warranted to give both. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A clickable title indicates to the reader that the article is available. A DOI link does not. This is a reason to include the url parameter. What is the problem with including the url parameter to create a link on the title? It does not add any length or text to the cite. FWIW I just added the open access icon instead on the cite on the NEJM article, but I still don't see a problem with providing a link on the title. I think it is of quite some use to readers to know without making additional clicks that the article is available to them. I have made an argument for its value, what is the counter argument? - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't have any. Just that I have seen somewhere that the doi-link is preferable over the URL link if they are the same (but for the life of me, I can't remember where). I guess that's why Citationbot is programmed to remove such URLs. Feel free to put it back, but you have to realize that the next time someone runs the bot on that page, it will be removed again automatically... --Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. In recognition of the bot action I will leave it as is with the open access icon. The rationale for DOI being preferable to url is that url is static and DOI gets updated (it should find the article even if it gets moved around). Thanks for your contributions (especially if you decide to help with WikiLibrary free account administration!). Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello RandyKitten,

On the 23rd April you deleted the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanoi_International_School

I have recently taken a position at the school and would like to ask your advice on how to restore an page for the school.

The reason you have given for deleting the page is that it is 'G11: unambiguous advertising' and 'G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://news.isc.vn/en/en/viet-nam/hanoi-international-school-his-endeavor-to-develop-responsible-globally...)

The school is a well established, and accredited international school. The article that was uploaded to the deleted page was a history of the school written by the Principal, who is probably the best positioned person to know. I'm afraid I can't see the link that is an infringement of copyright, but suspect it was something taken from the school.However,it can be rewritten.

Not having the school on Wikipedia leaves a great gap in the knowledge base of the encyclopedia. Please, can you help fill that gap?

Thank you

Cliffordinvietnam (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)MC

An article deleted by the CSD procedure can be re-created without any problem, as long as it is not identical to the deleted version, because that would suffer from the same problems and just get deleted again. Articles need to be non-promotional and neutral. The principal or other employees of the school are probably not the best choices to write such an article, given their inherent conflict of interest. Note also that WP is an encyclopedia and not a random collection of information: material included in an article needs to be encyclopedic, neutral, and sourced to independent reliable secondary sources. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Rather than get on with weeding my garden as I ought to be doing this afternoon, I've allowed myself to create a basic stub for you at Hanoi International School. It needs well-sourced expansion. The school's website is silent about its history, even to the date of foundation (I'd have added the category "Category:Educational institutions established in nnnn" if I'd known it: the school's website can be a "reliable source" for basic non-controversial facts). PamD 16:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And in a burst of enthusiasm I've added the logo, too. PamD 16:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your prompt assistance. Pam, I hope the garden hasn't suffered too much! Thanks again. Cliffordinvietnam (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to ask you why you advertised your proposed deletions on my talk page and not on the talk page of the article. Please answer on my talk page. Thank you. Chaudeau (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

Hi RandyKitty,

On the 25th June 2014 you deleted the page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Sales

I would love to hear any recommendations you may have to restoring this page.

The reason you have given for deleting this page is that it is (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion).

The article that was uploaded was based on the companies history, awards and its operation location. All of which was referenced and had relevant citations.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csaus (talk • contribs) 23:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, creating articles is one of the harder things to do here, expecially for companies and even more if you are somehow connected to that company (see WP:COI). Articles need to be written in a neutral way and every statement needs to be verifiable by references to independent reliable sources. I would recommend that you first edit some existing articles to get a feel of how things are done and only then try to recreate that article. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And that's not blockable? What is this world coming to...

Ha, ik had gisteren een kleine get-together met een Nederlandse piloot en "wat" vrienden--komt er opeens een meute van twee dozijn kaaskoppen van de luchtmacht binnenwandelen. In jaren niet zoveel landgenoten in een ruimte gezien. En allemaal jonger dan ik, met spierballen en kale koppen en middenklasse salarissen zonder een dag aan de universiteit te hebben gezeten--misschien had ik toch maar in dienst moeten gaan. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Was vorige week op een bruiloft, dus heb mijn portie kaaskoppen voor dit jaar ook al gehad :-) En als je rijk wil worden moet je niet in academica gaan... En al helemaal niet in verschillende landen gaan werken (ik mag een pensioen van ongeveer 50% van mijn huidige salaris verwachten, "pensioenbreuk"...) Ik ben de Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Teaching niet vergeten, alleen een beetje druk met enige POV editors (Democracy & Nature, Journal of Bengali Studies). En nu maar duimen voor zondag, ze zitten in de goede helft van de laatste 16, denk dat er een goede kans is dat ze de finale halen... --Randykitty (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on that? (If you reply here, please echo me - thanks!). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus:, I had a quick look and it the article is a copyvio of the one seource given (http://magnipublications.com/bio.html) and speediable for that reason. It also needs lots of cleanup (all those Who's Who's have to go, for example, they don't mean anything as these ones are all vanity publications). Apart from that, Constantinides seems to have a "named professorship", which meets WP:ACADEMIC. Let me know if you want me to delete it as copyvio or if you want to re-write it (although it may be better to start from scratch). --Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Since he is notable, I'd suggest prodding him, thus giving the author a chance to fix the issues. Through if you think speedy is better, go for it - I won't have time to work on this one. Would you mind looking into this Rhee Sue-goo - tagged since 2008. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

{ping|Piotrus}}, his name seems to be Sue-goo Rhee, "Rhee" being the family name. I only had a quick glance on Google Scholar, but saw a lot of highly cited articles, so he would meet ACADEMIC#1. --Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was supporting an editathon at the Physiological Society annual conference in London today, and the example of Physiological Reports came up during our event. Could you explain on the article talk page why you have re-added the notability template on the article and what additional evidence you believe is needed to meet General notability guideline beyond what is already in the short article?

By the way, I was surprised to see you removed the link to the chief editor's academic profile at her institution. Wray does not yet have an article on Wikipedia (but meets WP:Notability (academics), being a professor at a UK University) and this link, being independent from the Physiological Society, provided some context as to her prominence in the field. I do not believe there is any guideline nor policy which would encourage editors to limit references to key people who create the journal to Wikipedia articles about the living person. It would be helpful if you could add you point of view on this area to the article talk page as well. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, will answer on the talk page there. --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You changed my correction but Economics Bulletin is monthly while Economic Bulletin may be a quarterly journal. I work as a referee on the first and publish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perrygogas (talk • contribs) 21:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that goes back a while. I checked again: the journal's website lists 2 issues published this year up till now and 4 issues published last year, hence it seems to be clearly quarterly. We have no article "Economic Bulletin", nor is such a journal mentioned in the Economics Bulletin article. Could you provide a reference for the fact that the journal is monthly, not quarterly, despite what its own website indicates? --Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Royal Statistical Society may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Beveridge]], [[Ronald Fisher]], [[Harold Wilson]], and [[David Cox (statistician)|David Cox]] (see also the [[list of presidents of the Royal Statistical Society]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal Statistical Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I see that you deleted this page, I was the author, now I'm not going to contest your deletion, but I'd like to ask_is there a way to remove this page entirely? In other words, make it disappear or invisible? because the red alert is still on that page, and visitors can still see it, and it surely is not something good for mailimate. Please help me find a way to remove it. Thank you.--SEROLAF (talk)

The page doesn't exist any more, it was, as you correctly state, deleted. So I guess you're talking about the notice saying that a page with this title was previously deleted. As far as I know, there is no way to remove that notice. But I don't share your fears: the notice does not say anything that could be construed as negative about Mailimate, as far as I can see. --Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty. I am the author of the Terrence Keith Ashwin page that you deleted earlier today. I am new to Wikipedia and would really like to contribute. I do not really understand why the page was removed. It was up for discussion and I tried to respond to everything that was commented on the Talk page for deletion. There was no conclusive reason given or some constructive criticism. Terrence Keith Ashwin is an inventor worth mentioning. Please give me some guidance on what the best way would be to add him and his work to WP. --gcmbotha (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry that your first experiences here are less than positive. Creating new articles is one of the tougher things to do here. The article was removed because of a lack of notability (in the WP sense). This has nothing to do with good/bad or deserving, but only with whether independent secondary reliable sources have discussed the subject of an article in-depth. In the absence of such, there can be no article. Have a look at the guidelines/policies that I linked, that should explain things, I hope. --Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Article deleted because no indication of notability, despite speculation about hypothetical print sources. Clear consensus to delete. Case closed. --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I really wish you hadn't closed this while discussion was still ongoing. Perhaps some sort of consensus could have been achieved? Rather than close it, notifying the relevant WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada and Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal would have been a better option as it could have have attracted more community input. As it happens, only two people were engaged in the current discussion (myself and the nominator) which means it should have been closed as no consensus. Can you please change your close to no consensus or re-open the discussion so we can invite more editors into the discussion? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The AFD had been open for 9 days and there were certainly more than just 2 participants. The discussion really was petering out, with only 1 minor comment/day in the last 3 days. You were the only one !voting "keep", so consensus seems to be squarely at the "delete" side. So I don't see any reason to re-open this discussion or change my close. If you still disagree, you're of course free to take this to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's a discussion, not a vote. As an Admin, you should know that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, which is why I wrote "!vote" (as is convention here), not "vote". Fact remains that there were more than just 2 participants to the discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What I said is that there were only two people were engaged in the current discussion. Everyone else had dropped out. With only two editors still actively engaged in the discussion, I don't see how anyone can judge consensus (especially when both editors disagreed with one another). What's more, that discussion was still ongoing. Honestly, I hadn't expected anyone to close the AfD while discussion it was still ongoing. We don't have any deadlines so there was no harm in allowing the AfD to continue or inviting the relevant WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada and Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal seem the most relevant) into the discussion. Can you please re-open it or change the close no consensus? My preference is to allow the discussion to continue. If after another week (or whatever), it turns out that consensus goes against me, that's fine. It wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last. But as it stands now, I think the project is better served to allow the AfD reach a natural conclusion. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but no. AfDs usually get closed after 7 days, this one was allowed to run for 9. I re-reviewed the article and the discussion. There are clear policy-based deletion !votes, only 1 reference in the article itself, and the "ongoing discussion" really wasn't much of a discussion if you look at it (arguing about possible print sources that may or may not exist) and wa basically over (with 1 brief comment/day for the last 3 or 4 days). I am not going to re-open this AfD just because you don't like its outcome. If you think my close was wrong, feel free to go to DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There was not a single delete !vote after I pointed out that "Given that this occurred back in the 1970s, it's not surprising that there aren't a lot of online sources. What we really need is for someone to visit a Canadian library and check for printed sources." Unfortunately, closing the AfD prematurely cut off the discussion before we could ascertain whether such print sources exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither were there any "keep" !votes after you pointed this out. Again, sorry you didn't like the outcome of the AfD, but this is the end of this discussion as far as I am concerned. --Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point! You're totally missing the forest for the trees. How could there be any votes one way or the other without anyone actually knowing whether the topic was notable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, my objection has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. My problem is that the AfD was closed without anyone knowing whether the topic is notable or not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page deletion and restoring inquiry

DELETION TAG OF ARTICLE Sajid Abdullah Bin Alam

Two Updates

Write an Article For Cubicle International

Removing backlinks after deletions

WHY you are redirecting Sajid Abdullah Bin Alam to Sajid &amp; Zeeshan

Nireas-IWRC

Article DELETION

References for structured cognitive behavioral training

Request for comment

A kitten for you!

"Inappropriate" content

Article fluff &amp; editorial question

Assistance Required

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Brogdon

Thank you for your participation

Do you remember this edit?

June 2014

Angus Kennedy (chocolate taster)

Books &amp; Bytes, Issue 6

International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience

A kitten for you!

Qy

Caijing magazine

Deletion of articles about music and film festivals

RE

Kevin S. Hamilton

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Notability of Anna N. Żytkow

User:JennyHarkness

Out of date citation

Vajiravudh college

AfD, etc.

Speedy deletion declined: Feminist Art Journal

Your Assistance desperately required

Orphaned non-free image File:SouthRevcover2013.jpg

Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Notability of Erik Berglöf

Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Teaching

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Social science history

DOI based url parameter

Hanoi International School- Deleted page

Technologist (magazine)

Crazy Sales

"Son of Satan"

Notability of Dinos Constantinides

Notability for the Physiological Society journal

Economics Bulletin

July 2014

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Mailimate

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrence Keith Ashwin

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Redstar

WHY you are redirecting Sajid Abdullah Bin Alam to Sajid & Zeeshan

Article fluff & editorial question

Books & Bytes, Issue 6